Mailing-List: contact apreq-dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
In-Reply-To: <dtk6f3$obj$1@sea.gmane.org>
References: <87u0atkf2w.fsf@gemini.sunstarsys.com>
 <dtk6f3$obj$1@sea.gmane.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v746.2)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <2C1779FB-373B-4383-BBF5-5F74BB9DF9A8@madisonip.com>
Cc: apreq-dev@httpd.apache.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Ryan Perry <mason@madisonip.com>
Subject: Re: [RT] what's the roadmap?
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 10:47:38 -0600
To: "Nikolay Ananiev" <ananiev@thegdb.com>


On Feb 23, 2006, at 6:38 AM, Nikolay Ananiev wrote:

> I'd like to see the APR::* into a separate package on CPAN and  
> apreq to stay
> as it is now. Why?
> Because it can be used on different environments and different  
> servers.
> For example I want to use apreq with ActiveState's PerlEx on IIS  
> without the
> need to install Apache and mod_perl.

You bring up a good point.  However, I think the masses are better  
off by moving apreq into httpd.  Supporting a proprietary piece of  
software over enhancing an open source one that is more frequently  
used doesn't seem to make sense to me.

that's my $0.02

Ryan